Most Recent Extra Points

Cover-2: The No-Huddle Defense

by Doug Farrar

It would appear that sometimes, as much as we try to deny it, the Football Outsiders staff does operate as a hive mind. Just as Ben Muth put up his typically brilliant dissection of the Seattle Seahawks' new no-huddle concepts, I was finishing off this piece on how the New England Patriots finally broke the Rob Ryan code against the Dallas Cowboys last Sunday. Surprise, the answer is: with a major dose of the new "big thing" among NFL teams -- the increasing use of the no-huddle offense.

Since I cover the Seattle Seahawks (who have used it more and more as the season has progressed), I’ve been able to watch this idea grow, and ask specific questions about how Pete Carroll and offensive coordinator Darrell Bevell have used the no-huddle as a specific weapon as opposed to a curio that throws a defense off for a play or two.

"It’s about controlling the tempo," Carroll told me in early October, just before his team used the no-huddle to rack up 53 percent of their total yardage on 43 percent of their plays in an improbable road win against the New York Giants. "You get to call the plays you want to call, the formations you want to call, the way you want to do it and the time and all of that. The time it takes to get to the line of scrimmage and get them called. It’s just about being on the attack. I think I’ve felt us being much more aggressive in the mode, but we’re going in and we’re not doing anything exclusive.

"We’re not that far along yet. We’re just growing and we’re a young team that’s trying to put stuff together. As we learn and gain more confidence and get more of an understanding of what we can do we’ll just continue to try to make it hard –- the idea is to make it hard on the defense. Some of that is the no-huddle, some of that is just by deployment, some of that is by game plan and all that. We want to try to utilize as much as we can -- staying on the attack is really what it’s about."

That is indeed what it is about –- but it is also about foiling Ryan, the other Ryan, Dom Capers, Dick LeBeau, and any other defensive coordinator who likes to create headaches with not just multiple, but unconventional fronts.

Regarding the perception that Rob Ryan has some sort of bead on the Patriots’ offense, a notion that goes back to last November’s 34-14 loss to the Cleveland Browns (when Ryan was the Browns' defensive coordiantor) ... well, there are certain repeatable elements to Ryan’s defenses that have given Tom Brady and company pause. Ryan throws everything and the kitchen sink at an enemy offense. When he was with the Browns last season, his first three defensive plays against the Pats featured two down linemen, then one, then a "moving cow" or "amoeba" defense in which all 11 defenders stayed upright pre-snap so that Brady couldn’t key on anything.

Against the Patriots this time. Ryan threw in a few different looks to start -– on the Pats’ first offensive play, Ryan flared outside linebackers Anthony Spencer and DeMarcus Ware into short coverage zones against New England’s two-tight-end set. Brady hit Rob Gronkowski on the right side with a short pass, but since Ware only gave the appearance of rushing before backing off, he was able to corral the play for a one-yard gain.

Figure 1: Bunch Run

On the next play, the Cowboys got a little more exotic (Figure 1), lining three standup defenders over the Patriots’ bunch left formation. Based on the strong side cornerback placement, it seemed to be a run fit, but the Pats switched things up with one of the things the Steelers do better than just about any other team -– running out of bunch. It’s one of my favorite things to see a team do, because it still forces the defense to stretch its concepts pre-snap, but if you have great blocking tight ends as New England does in Gronkowski, you can really play it up and win the battles when it comes to run placement.

On this play, Gronkowski took a short step inside to an H-back look out of bunch after motioning from the other side, and pulled to the right to execute a perfect seal block on Ware. The most interesting aspect of this play is the faith the Patriots put in Gronkowski to execute that block; right tackle Nate Solder and right guard Brian Waters took Marcus Spears inside, leaving Ware wide open, and running back Stevan Ridley went right through that lane for a 16-yard gain. This is obviously a lot easier to execute, and less risky from a conceptual standpoint, when you’ve got a running play rather than a seven-step Brady drop, but it’s still pretty impressive.

I’ve liked Gronkowski’s blocking since I saw him pull off some pretty solid kick-steps in his rookie season, and he’s become one of the best in the game. If you follow the Bill Belichick film breakdowns on the Patriots’ official website (and if you don’t, you really should), you’ll hear the coach talk a lot about blocking, and specifically, the importance placed on the blocking of his receivers and tight ends.

Figure 2: Psycho Cyan

The Cowboys were more effectively creative at the line in their two first-quarter sacks. The first one came with 9:08 left in the first quarter (Figure 2), and Ryan setting up with one down lineman –- Jay Ratliff shading the center. Everyone else was either in two point stances, like Ware and Spencer in the end positions, or milling around. Because the coverage bracketed the receiver groupings up top and the back stayed in to block, Brady was off his hot route, and the line structure threw off his protection calls. Take that and add Ware’s amazing move on left tackle Matt Light –- Light took Ware’s furious charge back off the snap, but he couldn’t keep up as Ware moved back up to the pocket -– and that was it for the play.

In this week’s edition of the matchup preview podcast with Greg Cosell of NFL Films and ESPN NFL Matchup that I do on Yahoo, I asked Greg why these line sets and specific pressure concepts can throw off any quarterback –- even one as alert and proven as Brady.

"It’s really common sense, if you think about it," Greg said. "Tom Brady sets the protection at the line of scrimmage, and here’s how you set the protections -– you have to choose the five players the offensive linemen are going to block. And then, when you get to six and seven rushers, backs and tight ends become responsible for them. When there’s no defensive linemen, and nobody with their hands on the ground –- they’re kind of milling around in undefined amorphous positions –- who do you designate as the five defensive players to be blocked by the five offensive linemen?

"So now, Brady comes to the line, and he sees seven or eight people [at least] standing up. How does he set the protection? How does the offensive line know who to block?"

That resonated with me, and it’s also a good primer when you’re watching a well-executed zone blitz and wondering just how that guard or tackle, whose estimated defender just dropped into coverage and was replaced by somebody unexpected, could look so out of place. Still, something bothered me about this theory -– Belichick has been using these types of defenses for years, and if there’s anyone who should have an idea of how to call protections against it, wouldn’t it be the man who’s coached by Belichick?

"You still can’t do that, because you don’t know how they’re going to move, That’s a blackboard response, and now, you’re dealing with human beings moving around. So, Brady comes to the line -– let’s say that there are six guys to the right side of the offensive line, and two on the left. Brady sets the protection. Then, just before the ball is snapped, four of those six on the right side move to the left side. The protection has been set, and the ball has to be snapped because there’s two seconds left on the play clock. What do you do?"

The second sack of the first quarter was more of the same. The Cowboys had two down linemen and nine guys milling around, which caused the same sort of confusion.

So, how do you counter all of this stuff? I think that this is where the increasing no-huddle narrative has become a major factor this season. If you’re the Patriots, or any number of other teams, you start running a lot more no-huddle to keep those complicated defenses honest. In the first quarter of this game, New England ran 12 plays and scored three points, with two sacks and an interception mixed in. Not one no-huddle play. In the second quarter of this game, the Pats ran 20 plays and scored 10 points. No picks, no sacks. From the second play of the second quarter, every single play that didn’t start a drive – every possible play that could be no-huddle -– was.

You could see the change in Dallas’ defense immediately. As soon as they realized that Brady was calling the offense and not just the protections from the line, that Cowboys kaleidoscope defense became much less colorful in a hurry. Through the drive that took up the first three minutes of the second quarter and ended in a field goal, you saw two down linemen, Ware standing up on the defensive right side, and a nickel base defense. Over and over. The Patriots did another smart thing –- they punctuated the hurry-up stuff with running plays, ensuring that the Cowboys knew they’d have to pay if their quicker adjustments led to any poor run fits or gap integrity mistakes.

As much as Carroll has said that establishing the no-huddle is about setting tempo in a game, I think it’s as much or more about putting a defense on its heels by establishing a forced simplicity that no defensive coordinator wants. This seems to be the NFL's new highlighted schematic battle, and it will be fun to watch all season.

Left out (I think) is the fact that with the no-huddle, the defense can't substitute. So if the defense is in a pass protect personnel set and the offense gets seven yards on first down, the defense can't bring in run defenders. This can also tire the big fat guys, buy keeping them on the field for a ten play drive. Although why it doesn't tire the big fat o-linemen, I have no idea.

Recently, Brady has been running the no-huddle, but letting time run down before calling for the ball. That's obviously to keep subs off the field. If they try to substitute, he can just call for the ball and get a 12 men on the field violation.

The O-Line knows when the play is coming and where it is going. They're able to manage their activity better and they have the "easier" job of keeping the defender away from a spot. The D-Line players generally need to be ready to unexpectedly and they don't control the tempo; they're alwasy reacting. They have to force themselves to get to a specific player within a limited amount of time. Word of Muth today even makes mention of the O-Line having the less exhausting role.

"Left out (I think) is the fact that with the no-huddle, the defense can't substitute. "

That's not exactly accurate. The correct statement is that the defense cannot substitute as long as the offense did not substitute. If the offense subs the defense must be allowed to sub as well. That isn't a big issue for the Patriots who happily run in the 2WR 2TE 1RB package all the time, but it is important.

Why it doesn't tire OLinemen: because they in general have a lot less space to cover. They don't have to run huge distances most of the time, and they do get to be the attacker quite often (especially on running plays). On running plays they explode but it's not as far as a pass rusher has to go and on passing plays they tend to be mostly in the same space.

Is this true?
The offense has to have 11 men in the huddle, and has to be set before the snap. Is there a rule that says you have to wait for the defense to match your subs before you snap? Seems fishy to me.

Patriots offense has been causing 1-2 12 men on the field per game for a while. They used to only do that when playing Mangini, but have expanded it to the Ryan family. Some Colts quarterback, forgot his name, was very good at this. Getting a nice free first down whenever the defense tried to substitute.

It's nice that BB finally got the complete TE that he has lusted for 15 years. Daniel Graham's size + Ben Watson's speed and route running + Kyle Brady's potential. Again it only took BB 15 years, 2 # picks, and lots of big, old, nearly washed up TE free-agent signings!

Aren't there some obvious counters to this, specifically in Dallas' case where it was down to one last drive? It was noted/suggested I think in the audibles article that Brady called a timeout specifically to set the TD play and set the protection. Since Garrett put the game in the hands of the defense anyway, how about spending a timeout to let Ryan set the defense and bring in a fresh pass rusher? I also would like to see a defense attempt something more chaotic. Much was made about the NY Giants faking injuries, and there's always the old vaudeville routine of laying on the ball carrier, but how about just eating the lowest penalty yardage possible to slow the game up? If a DB committed defensive holding or a DL crashed the backfield pre-snap, I think that buys you enough time to get off your heels and make any substitutions you need.

Yes and no; that sort of thing can work (penalties, faking injuries) but it tends to give a lot of momentum to the other team. When you can see them faking injuries or causing penalties that is like blood in the water to an offense (especially the line) - they just go after you harder.

In general the offense has the advantage on huddling as well. It's not typical for a defense to be the ones that get the bigger advantage in choosing playcalls. It's substitution that is the big win.

The other thing to remember is that most defensive penalties include and automatic first down. You're not helping your guys catch their wind if you're also putting them on the field for three extra plays every time.

Going no-huddle might be an effective counter to these kinds of defense schemes.

But one question I'd like to see looked into is: Does extensive use of no-huddle lead to more injuries? Fatigued players are more likely to sustain an injury than fresh ones. If there is a significant increase in injuries as a result of extensive use of the no-huddle, then one might want to consider a rules change, such as having a mininum number of defenders on the line (two? three?) with hands on the ground.

I suppose the next step is to identify long time no-huddle teams. The Colts and the Jim Kelly Bills come to mind. Then check their injury rate vs the average. Not sure if there will be a large enough sample to be statistically significant.

So how many different formations and plays does a no-huddle team have for a specific personnel group? It seems like this might work great for a team like the Seahawks for a couple of weeks until defensive coordinators have enough film on their no-huddle offense. But if there's not enough variety defenses are going to start keying in on the plays pretty quickly.